Executive Committee Minutes - 2010 Midwinter
Western European Studies Section
Executive Committee Meeting, ALA Mid-Winter Meeting 2010
Meeting held on January 18, 2010, 10:30 A.M.-12:00 noon, Boston Convention and Exhibition Center, Room 104C
Committee members: Laura Dale Bischof (Univ. of Minnesota; Past Chair; Chair, Coutts Nijhoff Study Grant Jury), Adán Griego (Stanford Univ.; Chair of 2010 Int’l Conference Planning Committee), Richard Hacken (Brigham Young Univ.; WESSWeb editor), Sarah How (Cornell Univ.; Chair), Tom Izbicki (Rutgers; Chair of Fundraising Committee), Heidi Madden (Duke Univ.; Chair of 2010 Program Planning Committee), Jon Marner (Texas A&M; Chair of Publications Committee), Shawn Martin (Univ. of Pennsylvania; Member-at-Large), Timothy Shipe (Univ. of Iowa; Secretary; Chair of Research and Planning Committee), Ann Snoeyenbos (Project MUSE; Chair of Membership Committee), Brian Vetruba (Washington Univ.; Vice-Chair/Chair-Elect), Sarah Wenzel (Univ. of Chicago; Chair of WESS-SEES Task Force) Guests: Adam Burling (ACRL staff liaison), Mary Carr (Spokane Community College; ACRL Board Liaison), Gail Hueting (Univ. of Illinois Urbana-Champaign; Candidate for Vice-Chair/Chair-Elect), Joyce Ogburn (Univ. of Utah; ACRL Vice-President/President-Elect candidate), Marcus Richter (Alma College), Sheila Smyth (Univ. of California-Irvine; Member, Publications Committee)
The meeting was called to order at 10:33 A.M.
Bischof thanked officers, committee chairs, discussion group (DG) conveners, and WESS members for their hard work and for attending the conference. The attendees introduced themselves and signed an attendance sheet.
2. Approval of agenda (How)
The meeting’s agenda was unanimously approved with a shift in the order of items.
3. WESS International Conference (Griego)
A new chair is needed for the committee, and the charge needs to be revised. Two draft documents were recently released by ACRL, one outlining guidelines for international conferences, the other declaring a moratorium on international conference planning for 2010 and 2011. The International Conference Committee suggested some revised wording in the second document to permit the section to continue some of its planning work as long as it does not make any demands on ACRL staff time, and ACRL staff agreed to the change subject to approval by the Board. Griego believes that the guidelines document will be useful, but suggested that the draft document should be sent to affected groups for comment before it is approved. The Executive Committee will work on a revised charge for the International Conference Committee by e-mail discussion following Midwinter. 4. WESS/SEES Exploratory Committee (Wenzel)
The committee has been working to develop an “ideal model” of what an integrated section might look like. Two such models were proposed. In addition, WESS members of the committee made some suggestions that might help SEES become more viable as a section if no merger occurs. The committee feels that the next step should be a survey of both sections to determine whether a merger is worth pursuing, and would welcome assistance from anyone who has survey expertise. The WESS Executive Committee will have an opportunity to review any survey before it is sent out. Executive Committee unanimously approved sending a survey to members of both sections, contingent on approval by the SEES Executive Committee. A report of the results will be expected at the Annual Conference.
5. LES/WESS ACRL Liaison to the Modern Language Association (Wenzel)
The WESS-LES task force submitted the paperwork requesting an official liaison, although ACRL is in the process of rethinking the liaison program. Carr explained that there are a total of ten slots for ACRL liaisons, and the division hopes to review the program in order to place these liaisons more strategically. That proposal will go before the ACRL Board today. Under the proposal, the more “subject specific” liaison relationships would be delegated to the sections and communities of practice, which would be responsible for any funding of their liaison positions. Wenzel pointed out that it is not just funding that is significant for liaison relationships, but also the official ACRL recognition, which often is important in order for liaisons to obtain travel funding from their institutions. She also pointed out that the MLA is multidisciplinary, and is relevant for several sections. 6. Report from ACRL (Burling, Carr)
Burling reported on the membership database cleanup, which has resulted in reduced but more accurate membership figures for sections; in large part this is because conversions of student to regular memberships had not been handled correctly, leading to duplicate entries. ACRL has abolished Action Plans, but is looking at ways to fund section proposals through board action forms. A subcommittee is working on new models for section funding. The division is also issuing new guidelines on unit websites. ACRL is providing new resources for virtual meetings. Adobe Connect is available for virtual meetings of more than 20 participants. For fewer than 20 people, Dimdim is free and recommended.
7. Visit from ACRL Vice-President/President-Elect candidate Joyce Ogburn (University of Utah)
Ogburn asked what the section wants from her as a candidate. Because of the long agenda and scarcity of time, the committee agreed to collect comments for her by e-mail after Midwinter.
8. Budget report and priorities (Izbicki)
Donor support for the year totaled $5,650, and ACRL funding was $1,720; the section’s expenses for the year were $3,754.19. The section has not been loosing support; in fact, two donors increased their contributions. Izbicki believes that we can continue to expect support for our program and social event. We should remember to thank donors individually and as a section.
9. Publications (Marner)
The Executive Committee agreed to postpone consideration of the Publication Committee’s request to conduct an e-mail survey of membership concerning a possible name change for the newsletter. This will be discussed by e-mail following Midwinter. 10. Membership (Snoeyenbos)
The Membership Committee would like to develop a communication plan for the section, outlining what avenues are best for what sorts of communication. They might work in collaboration with the Publications Committee, and will try to have a draft version available in time for the Annual Conference.
11. Program Planning (2011) (Vetruba) Vetruba described the three possible topics under consideration for the 2011 program. How suggested that if the chosen topic is suitable for collaboration with SEES, that section should be approached as early as possible in the planning process.
12. College and Medium-sized Libraries Discussion Group As agreed previously, the Executive Committee will decide at the Annual Conference whether the College and Medium-sized Libraries Discussion Group should be continued or dissolved. In the meantime, the chair will attempt to convene the group at Annual.
13. Strategic Planning (How) The committee discussed how to conduct the strategic planning process. How suggested that we use either a conference call or Dimdim for an initial discussion, drawing the current ACRL Strategic Priorities as a springboard. We will attempt to conduct this early discussion in early February. In the meantime, we should send Sarah any thoughts or ideas for planning. There is also an ACRL membership survey that can be broken down by section.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:55 A.M. Respectfully submitted, Timothy Shipe, WESS Secretary